TOPIC: Conversion of the Special Protection Residence Permit and the Transitional Regime after Decree-Law 20/2023 – Commentary on T.A.R. Sicily, Third Section, Judgment of 21 November 2025 (General Docket No. 851/2025)
Academic Article
The judgment issued by the Regional Administrative Court of Sicily, Third Section, published on 21 November 2025 in case number 851/2025, offers a significant contribution to the interpretation of the transitional regime set out in Article 7 of Decree-Law 20/2023, incorporated into Law 50/2023. In particular, it clarifies the scope of the provision allowing the conversion of a special protection residence permit into a residence permit for subordinate employment. The decision comes at a moment in which several Police Headquarters across the country have adopted a rigid and restrictive approach to the transitional provisions, generating uncertainty and, at times, prejudicial outcomes for individuals whose integration paths have already been formally recognised by the judiciary.
The case examined by the Court concerns a foreign national who had obtained a special protection permit pursuant to a decree of the Tribunal of Palermo. That decree had emphasised the applicant’s concrete social and employment integration, grounding the protection in the framework of fundamental rights safeguarded by Article 19 of the Consolidated Immigration Act. The civil court had underscored that his removal from Italian territory would have disproportionately harmed his private and family life. Having received the residence permit, the applicant then entered into a stable employment relationship and, consistently with the purpose of the institution, applied to the Police Headquarters for the conversion of the permit into a work-related title.
The Palermo Police Headquarters rejected the request, basing its decision on a purely formal premise: according to the administration, the permit had been issued following proceedings concerning international protection rather than an application for special protection submitted before 5 May 2023. That circumstance, in the administration’s view, excluded the applicability of the transitional regime. It is precisely on this point that the TAR intervenes, offering a systematic reconstruction of the normative framework that prevents selective or artificial interpretations.
The Court emphasises that Article 7 of Decree-Law 20/2023 does not draw any distinction between the various procedural avenues through which a special protection permit may be issued. The wording of the provision refers exclusively to the date on which the application was submitted, which constitutes the sole temporal threshold laid down by the legislator. Neither the text of the statute, nor the preparatory works, nor the logic of the system support the introduction of additional conditions. The TAR expressly refers to the opinion delivered by the State Legal Service on 31 May 2024, which holds that conversion is admissible for all special protection permits recognised judicially, provided they relate to applications submitted before 5 May 2023. The opinion also stresses that drawing a distinction between permits based on Article 19 of the Consolidated Act and those based on Article 32 of Legislative Decree 25/2008 would be irrational and incompatible with Article 3 of the Constitution.
It is noteworthy that the Court insists on the structural unity of special protection, which does not tolerate interpretative fragmentation. In all its procedural variations, special protection has the same substantive requirements: those derived from Article 19 of the Consolidated Act, which safeguards the core of fundamental rights of foreign nationals. Creating distinct categories depending on the procedural pathway or the nature of the litigation would violate the principle of equality and undermine the very rationale of the protection.
The judgment also pays particular attention to the relationship between judicial protection and administrative delay. The Court observes that a restrictive approach such as that adopted by the Police Headquarters would effectively penalise those applicants who, having initially received a refusal, were compelled to initiate judicial proceedings—often lengthy and complex—to obtain a favourable outcome. Allowing the length of proceedings to undermine the applicant’s ability to benefit from the transitional regime would contradict the principles of due process, especially considering that the legislator intended to preserve continuity for applications submitted under the previous regulatory framework.
The decision therefore does more than correct an interpretative error; it reaffirms the need for a constitutionally oriented reading of transitional provisions. Within this framework, the conversion of the special protection permit functions as a tool designed to stabilise integration paths, which remain a central element in the balance struck by the Italian legal system between migration control and the protection of fundamental rights. The idea that an applicant may be deprived of the opportunity to consolidate his employment situation for merely procedural reasons stands in clear opposition to the broader logic of the system.
In conclusion, the judgment of the TAR Sicily assumes significance that extends beyond the specific case. It contributes to clarifying the application of the transitional regime, constrains arbitrary administrative interpretations, and reaffirms the conceptual and functional unity of special protection. The decision aligns with a growing body of case law aimed at protecting the legitimate expectations of foreign nationals and strengthening the legal recognition of their integration paths. It is reasonable to expect that this approach will continue to consolidate over the coming months, with important implications for administrative practice and for the personal and professional planning of foreign nationals whose special protection has been judicially recognised.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento